Poll: Dan Snyder -- Is he a good owner or a bad owner?

[Art]

He should have hired a GM a long time ago. He should have hired one once he fired Casserly. Even Gibbs would benefit from that.

I tend to find this particular worry a bit dumb, to be honest Dave.

Why do the Redskins need a GM when a very high number of teams in the league do NOT have a GM. Would having a GM, called a GM, allow us to put Pro Bowl tight ends on reserve lists that force them to miss the regular season opener for no reason other than our own petty view of how to deal with contracts as happened in San Diego?

You people who are fixated with the title of GM just don't get it. You need the proper people in position to identify people and work together. Many teams with a strong head coach do not have people specifically with GM responsibilities. New England, for all the love thrown Pioli, doesn't have a GM or anyone with those responsibilities. Philadelphia had a GM and he found McNabb, but they don't have a GM anymore.

The Redskins operate in a way that is very similar to how many teams -- in fact, the MOST SUCCESSFUL teams -- operate. There is clear authority in the football structure in the hands of foot ball people. There is a clear, organized, excellent personnel staff, headed by Cerrato, who's done a fine job adjusting to various staffs with various needs and who is respected for his hard, detailed, solid work by Joe Gibbs among others.

I think we need to understand a GM is a magic pill created by the media to make the more dim members of the fan base feel like the answer is there, but, smart fans should know how things work throughout the league and with the Redskins, and realize, it's just a silly thing to pine over considering the state of most of the league's successful teams.

[Art]

FB,

I was the most skeptical person on the board when Cerrato returned after Marty was terminated. But, one can not and should not deny good work where it is apparent, and Cerrato has done a splendid job of idenifying players for various schemes and coaching staffs that have improved his standing in the eyes of anyone paying attention.

The personnel department has been stable and consistently capable of organizing and grading players specifically for specific systems we're running. Those systems may not always work, but it's rarely due to the personnel department not helping zero in on the right players for the scheme.

The statement your coach makes is not really effective at capturing what a team is. You were 6-10 for example, yet you were a dramatically weaker 6-10 than we were. Same record, but very different feel about getting there. Where you were routinely destroyed in your games, or where you won a couple with dramatic, somewhat rare comebacks, we generally won being ahead, and lost close in ways you often can improve on or not expect to continue to occur.

We were rarely beaten to death by the competition as you were, so, we see that while we are 6-10 we weren't actually the same.

Your timeline as to Snyder's decisions is flawed as well. He did fire Norv, but, Marty fired Robiskie. Marty also fired Cerrato which was not something contractually allowed, but, Snyder allowed it in support of his coach. Hiring Spurrier was an unquestionably good move that didn't work out. Lewis took a head coaching job, something Snyder's not likely to take much heat for. Spurrier quit, he was not fired, and was even told he wouldn't be fired.

The end results on the field, by in large, are out of the owner's control if he provides the best people and the most money he can to help the team. Just as we don't credit Snyder for Williams' defense, we don't pan him for Gibbs offense. Williams gets the credit. Gibbs gets the blame.

I find your example on San Diego a funny one.

Stumbling on to a winning plan is stumbling on to a disappointing QB who suddenly becomes good. A QB who only starts at all because his replacement held out because San Diego couldn't, as they never seem capable, of signing a rookie pick on time.

You can't seriously say to me a team that EVERYONE thought was among the weakest in football that had surprising, unforseen performances out of players like Drew Brees had a plan for success when they drafted a QB to replace Brees?

Or, do you mean to say if Ramsey matches Brees in performance then the Redskins will have carefully charted a plan for success similar to the Chargers and you'll be astounded?

Each occassion Snyder has had an opportunity to hire people he's found the best people available. We need to hold those people accountable for their failure, just as we credit them for their success. Unfortunately, most people will be very pleased with Gregg Williams for the success of the defense, yet, think Snyder's to blame for the weakness of the team.

That's a way for people to avoid placing blame where it belongs.

Don't fall for that.

[Prosperity]

Why all the talk about needing a GM? Some of the earlier signing were questionable, but the recent ones have proven to be great. Especially the free agents that we got for this defense. Griffin, Springs, and Washington have become key players and the players that we drafted are contributing even if the ones who were drafted late. The most recent mess ups were pretty much out of Snyder's hands ie Coles deciding he didn't like it, or Barrow's knee (which turned out not to matter). The worst thing Snyder did was probably hiring Spurrier, but everyone drank that cool aid.

[RedskinsDave]

So basically what I am reading is some of you won't blame anything on Snyder. I tend to hold the guy in charge responsible when the people he hires fail. I'm just silly like that.

[Art]

So basically what I am reading is some of you won't blame anything on Snyder. I tend to hold the guy in charge responsible when the people he hires fail. I'm just silly like that.

Snyder is responsible for hiring good football people who are in demand in the NFL. Had he signed an unknown coach like Andy Reid who failed, he should be blamed for taking a chance on a guy who wasn't ready for the job. But, he shouldn't be blamed for hiring proven football men like Marty and letting him do the job or coveted football men like Spurrier and giving him the tools requested.

As long as his hires are reasonably good ones.

Unlike you, I blame the failure on the people who fail as long as the owner can be said to have given them the resources and room to do their job.

[RedskinsDave]

Snyder is responsible for hiring good football people who are in demand in the NFL. Had he signed an unknown coach like Andy Reid who failed, he should be blamed for taking a chance on a guy who wasn't ready for the job. But, he shouldn't be blamed for hiring proven football men like Marty and letting him do the job or coveted football men like Spurrier and giving him the tools requested.

As long as his hires are reasonably good ones.

Unlike you, I blame the failure on the people who fail as long as the owner can be said to have given them the resources and room to do their job.

Fine, can I blame him for the ticket prices or the $5 hot dogs or does that one fall to the vendor?

Seriously, you can say he has hired the right people but there are plenty, including those people he hired who have said that what Snyder did and will do regarding contracts, etc. is the problem with the team. Oh, I guess that's Joe Mendez's fault. There has to be some blame because we're going on 6 years in his full control and we're going nowhere fast, unless you're counting how much the team nets.

[goldenster95]

So basically what I am reading is some of you won't blame anything on Snyder. I tend to hold the guy in charge responsible when the people he hires fail. I'm just silly like that.

Umm, yes, the buck stops with Snyder, but that really misses the whole point. The issue here should focus in on Snyder's conduct, specifically as to whether he exercised prudence in his acts (and omissions) as an owner. As of late, Snyder has been money as an owner, mirroring a lot of what Jack Kent Cooke used to do -- and more importantly what he didn't do. He hired Gibbs and let him call the shots, with respect to both on-field and personnel issues. One of the fruits of this laissez-fair policy is the superlative decision Gibbs made in hiring Gregg Williams and a bevy of assistant coaches that are the class of the NFL. To be sure, Gibbs has also blundered on some other decisions, but the fact remains that Gibbs has unfettered discretion in making all football decisions for the 'Skins. That's the way to do things today, tomorrow, and forever.

[RAVENS_SUCK_HUN]

Who manipulated the results of this poll?

[Art]

Fine, can I blame him for the ticket prices or the $5 hot dogs or does that one fall to the vendor?

Seriously, you can say he has hired the right people but there are plenty, including those people he hired who have said that what Snyder did and will do regarding contracts, etc. is the problem with the team. Oh, I guess that's Joe Mendez's fault. There has to be some blame because we're going on 6 years in his full control and we're going nowhere fast, unless you're counting how much the team nets.

Dave,

I've never heard anyone say what we've done regarding contracts is even A problem with the team much less THE problem with the team. The Redskins have NEVER been over the projected cap for the following season once one season began, though that could change this year.

The team has never had to make any dramatic cuts specifically to get under the cap. The team has EVEN had such good cap control and flexibility it has been able to take large cap hits for players deemed not to be working out like Trotter and Coles.

The Redskins have a relatively young team with all critical components under contract for years to come. Contracts are built with flexibility allowing conversions in Paragraph 5 pay which we often run as low as any team in the league due to higher bonus and dead money.

While it is true you've heard of cap doom coming, it's never come, so, at some point, you have to allow your mind to accept the fact things are pretty damn solid. We were able to add Rabach this year and offer substantial deals to Pierce and Smooty. We were able to offer acceptably large deals to Moss, and two first-round picks.

We have no forseeable cap issues next year given how the contracts are structured allowing easy manipulation as we deem appropriate. Cash solves cap. As long as our owner is willing to spend cash the cap is largely irrelevant. Only when the owner tightens up does the bill come due. Our owner is unlikely to tighten up any time soon, allowing a somewhat perpetual ability to work the cap as we see fit without any real constraints in working deals with players.

There is a lot of blame in the failure of Marty's coaching and Spurrier's coaching and Lewis' coaching and Edwards' coaching that goes to those guys. Just as there's a lot of blame to Gibbs for his failure in coaching. That's who gets the blame.

[RedskinsDave]

Dave,

I've never heard anyone say what we've done regarding contracts is even A problem with the team much less THE problem with the team. The Redskins have NEVER been over the projected cap for the following season once one season began, though that could change this year.

The team has never had to make any dramatic cuts specifically to get under the cap. The team has EVEN had such good cap control and flexibility it has been able to take large cap hits for players deemed not to be working out like Trotter and Coles.

The Redskins have a relatively young team with all critical components under contract for years to come. Contracts are built with flexibility allowing conversions in Paragraph 5 pay which we often run as low as any team in the league due to higher bonus and dead money.

While it is true you've heard of cap doom coming, it's never come, so, at some point, you have to allow your mind to accept the fact things are pretty damn solid. We were able to add Rabach this year and offer substantial deals to Pierce and Smooty. We were able to offer acceptably large deals to Moss, and two first-round picks.

We have no forseeable cap issues next year given how the contracts are structured allowing easy manipulation as we deem appropriate. Cash solves cap. As long as our owner is willing to spend cash the cap is largely irrelevant. Only when the owner tightens up does the bill come due. Our owner is unlikely to tighten up any time soon, allowing a somewhat perpetual ability to work the cap as we see fit without any real constraints in working deals with players.

There is a lot of blame in the failure of Marty's coaching and Spurrier's coaching and Lewis' coaching and Edwards' coaching that goes to those guys. Just as there's a lot of blame to Gibbs for his failure in coaching. That's who gets the blame.

What do we have to show for it? The spending at times has prevented the spending at others, namely this year. We let Smoot go when we should have kept him. We let Pierce go when we should have kept him. I will admit they both were paid a little higher than I would want but when we go out and pay OTHER team's stars to come in here and suck, the complaint from players who leave that we don't pay our own guys is hard to dispute. Also, when we outbid ourselves for a player like Coles and Brunell, it effects the cap space. When we give up draft picks for restricted free agents, it effects cap space since rookies make less than vets. There are many more but really if all you look at is "are we in cap hell" then you are being pretty narrow in your scope.

[goldenster95]

What do we have to show for it? The spending at times has prevented the spending at others, namely this year. We let Smoot go when we should have kept him. We let Pierce go when we should have kept him. I will admit they both were paid a little higher than I would want but when we go out and pay OTHER team's stars to come in here and suck, the complaint from players who leave that we don't pay our own guys is hard to dispute. Also, when we outbid ourselves for a player like Coles and Brunell, it effects the cap space. When we give up draft picks for restricted free agents, it effects cap space since rookies make less than vets. There are many more but really if all you look at is "are we in cap hell" then you are being pretty narrow in your scope.

Smoot and Pierce weren't let go because we chintzed on our own players. They were offered contracts similar to that given to, respectively, Shawn Springs and Marcus Washington a year before. To offer them more, which was what they were asking for, would have amounted to disrespect to Springs and Washington, both of whom were Pro-Bowl selections (though Springs was an alternate). In fact, in offering them a similar contract when neither played up to the level that either Springs or Washington did is some for of disrespect in and of itself. Accordingly, in letting Smoot and Pierce hit the free agent market, we hardly cheapskated them, we in fact ended up infusing some integrity in dealing with current players who came up big for us.

As for Brunell and Coles, they may have been over paid. So what? What proof do you have that those signings -- or any for that matter -- turned us away from signing anyone else?

[Art]

What do we have to show for it? The spending at times has prevented the spending at others, namely this year. We let Smoot go when we should have kept him. We let Pierce go when we should have kept him. I will admit they both were paid a little higher than I would want but when we go out and pay OTHER team's stars to come in here and suck, the complaint from players who leave that we don't pay our own guys is hard to dispute. Also, when we outbid ourselves for a player like Coles and Brunell, it effects the cap space. When we give up draft picks for restricted free agents, it effects cap space since rookies make less than vets. There are many more but really if all you look at is "are we in cap hell" then you are being pretty narrow in your scope.

Dave, this is absurd.

The spending hasn't prevented us from ANYTHING WHATSOEVER this year or any other. Smoot is my favorite player and, yes, I'd loved to have kept him. Desperately. But, it wasn't for too much spending that we couldn't keep him. We offered him over $10 million on bonus dollars. We weren't hurting for room to sign him.

If anything it wasn't the spending that hurt us, but, the decision to release Coles and take his hit with the tremendous cap room we had rather than upping offers to guys like Smoot and Pierce. You need to know this stuff better. You can't reasonably suggest we were tight against the cap and couldn't sign Smoot or Pierce when we offered them MULTIPLE MILLIONS in bonus dollars and reasonably comparable contracts to what they got even AFTER taking a $9 million hit for Coles.

You need to be more reasonable if you want to be taken seriously.

[Art]

Who manipulated the results of this poll?

Uh, no one. In fact, negative votes against Snyder are primarly guests or fans of opposing teams. Smart folks know better.

[RedskinsDave]

Dave, this is absurd.

The spending hasn't prevented us from ANYTHING WHATSOEVER this year or any other. Smoot is my favorite player and, yes, I'd loved to have kept him. Desperately. But, it wasn't for too much spending that we couldn't keep him. We offered him over $10 million on bonus dollars. We weren't hurting for room to sign him.

If anything it wasn't the spending that hurt us, but, the decision to release Coles and take his hit with the tremendous cap room we had rather than upping offers to guys like Smoot and Pierce. You need to know this stuff better. You can't reasonably suggest we were tight against the cap and couldn't sign Smoot or Pierce when we offered them MULTIPLE MILLIONS in bonus dollars and reasonably comparable contracts to what they got even AFTER taking a $9 million hit for Coles.

You need to be more reasonable if you want to be taken seriously.

Ah condescending bs from a guy in the owner's pockets. You need to pretend to be more objective in order to be taken seriously.

You can't seriously suggest that the dollars we offered Smoot and Pierce disappeared into thin air and now we are were we on with the cap by some magic formula.

You honestly don't think we would have liked to go after a better WR than we did? You honestly think we didn't prefer to go after a better CB than we did? Why didn't we? Oh that's right, we're paying Brunell and Coles to ride the pine or play for someone else. They are only two of the cap killers. There are plenty more.

The bottom line is the bottom line and that is that this IS and HAS NOT BEEN a very good team at any time in the last 6 years. I am hoping for 8-8 this year. I guess you're going to run over the cliff and off to Vegas to bet us at 14-2.

[goldenster95]

Ah condescending bs from a guy in the owner's pockets. You need to pretend to be more objective in order to be taken seriously.

You can't seriously suggest that the dollars we offered Smoot and Pierce disappeared into thin air and now we are were we on with the cap by some magic formula.

You honestly don't think we would have liked to go after a better WR than we did? You honestly think we didn't prefer to go after a better CB than we did? Why didn't we? Oh that's right, we're paying Brunell and Coles to ride the pine or play for someone else. They are only two of the cap killers. There are plenty more.

The bottom line is the bottom line and that is that this IS and HAS NOT BEEN a very good team at any time in the last 6 years. I am hoping for 8-8 this year. I guess you're going to run over the cliff and off to Vegas to bet us at 14-2.

Hate to bud in again, but . . .

The stuff about a supposed WR and CB we could've gone after is, at best, rank speculation. We did get a WR we wanted in Moss and later in Patten. Do you have the slightest idea who we might've coveted but missed out on because of our alleged cap mess? As for CB, we let Smoot go knowing that Springs was our #1 CB and that Walt Harris could more than step up and, though he may not play up to Smoot's level, do enough to reasonably fill in for him.

As for this business about how we've lost over the past six years, what's your point on that? Are you saying that the cap stuff you've referred to was the cause of that? If so, that's hardly the case. The reason for that is the constant turnover we've witnessed over that period of time, something that'll kill any team no matter what talent they have.

[zoony]

You honestly don't think we would have liked to go after a better WR than we did? You honestly think we didn't prefer to go after a better CB than we did? Why didn't we?

Wait a minute I thought you were against high-priced free agents.

Now I'm really confused...

[iheartskins]

he's a great owner if we rack up some SBs! Otherwise, he's just a great businessman.

I think that's one of the best points made in this thread.

[Art]

Dave,

I'm sorry having your factual inaccuracies corrected frustrates you, but, you really need to get over your factually incorrect presumption that I, or anyone here, is in the pockets of Snyder. First, this thread dates to January of this year. Second, no one at ES receives a dime from Snyder in any form for any work we do with the message boards. Not a dime.

If it makes you feel better to think otherwise, that's great, but, you need to know we're not going to be all that worried about your false notions and we're not going to apologize to you that you have them.

The money didn't disappear into thin air. We used some on other players, some on Rogers and others, and the like. We also would have released players sooner had we needed to, like Gardner and Barrow. We may have altered draft strategy and not acquired. Hell, maybe had they taken their offers we wouldn't have done with Coles what we did.

There are a lot of things at play here. What you can not deny is the fact the team made legitimate offers to these players that were rejected. To make such offers, the team had to have the ability to pay them. The team did.

We likely identified players we did like, in Moss and Rogers. About half the teams in the league had Rogers at the top of their corner board, so, we probably got as good as there was to get. Not many teams were able to acquire a healthy, young, 1,100-yard, 10-TD catch receiver in the league. We were.

In any case, it's clear little of our actions were because of a lack of cap room. As you rightly point out, we're paying Coles to play elsewhere as it comes to the cap. Therefore, you recognize we had to have at LEAST $9 million free to do with coles what we wanted. That was what we did with a good portion of our money this offseason. Therefore you know the cap was not a problem.

There is no counter point to this. This is a factual statement. To take a $9 million hit on Coles we had to be so far under the cap as to swallow it. We were. That's good cap management.

[Die Hard]

Ah condescending bs from a guy in the owner's pockets. You need to pretend to be more objective in order to be taken seriously..

Dave, seriously. Do you need me to go to HailRedskins.com and pull up your posts about ExtremeSkins.com, its staff, the members... and the Redskins in general?

Is that how you want me to dispell your "objectivity"?

[zoony]

Dave, seriously. Do you need me to go to HailRedskins.com and pull up your posts about ExtremeSkins.com, its staff, the members... and the Redskins in general?

Is that how you want me to dispell your "objectivity"?

he might not want you to, but I'd love to see...

[Die Hard]

he might not want you to, but I'd love to see...

This is exactly the type of "nasty"... roll up your sleeves and let the crap fly.

Except it's not crap. It's the truth. And it could get ugly.

[zoony]

well I don't want to see anything get nasty ( :halo: ... ), but I am curious as to the reasons for his hostility

[goldenster95]

This is exactly the type of "nasty"... roll up your sleeves and let the crap fly.

Except it's not crap. It's the truth. And it could get ugly.

Wow, didn't know that there was some history to this. Cliffs Notes version anyone? :laugh:

[iheartskins]

For what it's worth, at hR.com, you can't just search for "Extremeskins" because "it's too common." Something's a little fishy about that...

[TK]

Wow, didn't know that there was some history to this. Cliffs Notes version anyone? :laugh:

You've no idea.